[PATCH v10] drm: Add initial ci/ subdirectory

[Rob Clark]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:25 AM Helen Mae Koike Fornazier
<helen.koike at collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 11:37 -03, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:26 PM Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 22:47, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I did run into a bit of a chicken vs. egg problem with testing the "in
> > > > > tree" version (compared to earlier versions which kept most of the yml
> > > > > and scripts in a separate tree), is that it actually requires this
> > > > > commit to exist in the branch you want to run CI on.  My earlier
> > > > > workaround of pulling the drm/ci commit in via
> > > > > ${branchname}-external-fixes no longer works.
> > > >
> > > > After unwinding some more gitlab repo settings that were for the
> > > > previous out-of-tree yml setup, I have this working.
> > > >
> > > > Tested-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > And it's also:
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
> > >
> > > It's been back and forth a few times by now and reviewed pretty
> > > heavily by all the people who are across the CI details. I think the
> > > next step is to answer all the workflow questions by actually getting
> > > it into trees and using it in anger. There was some discussion about
> > > whether this should come in from drm-misc, or the core DRM tree, or a
> > > completely separate pull, but I'm not sure what the conclusion was ...
> > > maintainers, thoughts?
> >
> > I'd prefer a separate pull, so that I could merge it into msm-next as
> > well without having to pull in all of drm-misc
>
> Should we create a drm-ci ?

I guess we can just wait and see how often it is that drm/ci updates
need to be merged into multiple driver trees.  Hopefully most of the
drm/ci changes are just expectation file updates which should go via
driver tree.  Maybe i-g-t uprevs, if they have a lot of expectation
changes would be something drivers would want to merge into their own
tree?  But I guess we can see how it goes.

> >
> > Possibly some other driver trees would like to do similar?
> >
> > BR,
> > -R
>
> Also, please wait for v11, I have a few adjustments to make as pointer by
> some comments, and also regarding xfails list and how the configs should
> be organized (unless if you are fine merging this version and I can submit
> the adjustments later).

Ok

BR,
-R

> Thanks,
> Helen
>